ncloud_dataflow_update_job

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. No mention of merge vs. replace behavior, required permissions, or side effects. The description relies entirely on annotations for safety insights.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Efficient and direct.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of updating a job configuration, the description lacks completeness. It does not state the return value, success criteria, or differentiate sufficiently from sibling tools like update_job_execute_config. Agent would need to infer or experiment.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. However, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, such as clarifying the 'options' object format or valid values. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing Data Flow job configuration,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (existing Data Flow job configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, verify, execute, and delete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_dataflow_create_job, ncloud_dataflow_execute_job, or ncloud_dataflow_update_job_execute_config. Missing context on prerequisites (e.g., job must exist) or when modifications are appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.